Monday, 6 June 2011

Sarah Palin may be America's pro-life sweetheart, but a story making the rounds on conservative websites paints a different picture. It turns out Palin might actually be pro-choice.

Conservative news website Free Republic made their case against Palin's pro-life claims. They say that while governor she appointed a former Planned Parenthood official to the Alaska Supreme Court and that she supports the use of the abortion drug RU-486.

One of the most damning pieces of evidence against her is her continued claim to be "personally" pro-life. This phrase is generally used by pro-choice candidates to make their views seem more palatable to the conservative Christian voting block. It amounts to agreeing that women should have the right to choose but that the candidate wouldn't personally opt for an abortion.

In Sarah Palin's first book, "Going Rogue," she mentions that when she found out she was pregnant with her youngest child (a son who was born with Down's Syndrome) she briefly considered an abortion.

Additionally Sarah Palin has never supported so-called Personhood amendments, which are attempts by conservative lawmakers to grant personhood to fetuses, thus making harming them (such as would happen during an abortion) illegal.

6 comments:

To quote Matt Taibbi who saw this coming a couple years ago:"...If there was any kind of consensus support for Palin inside the beltway, the criticism of her, bet on it, would be almost totally confined to chortling east coast smartasses like me and Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan.

What the people who are flipping out about the treatment of Palin should be asking themselves is what it means when it’s not just jerks like us but everybody piling on against Palin. For those of you who can’t connect the dots, I’ll tell you what it means. It means she’s been cut loose. It means that all five of the families have given the okay to this hit job, including even the mainstream Republican leaders. You teabaggers are in the process of being marginalized by your own ostensible party leaders in exactly the same way the anti-war crowd was abandoned by the Democratic party elders in the earlier part of this decade. Like the antiwar left, you have been deemed a threat to your own party’s “winnability.”

I've always wondered if she didn't want god to take that last baby right back. It's incomprehensible that she would fly across the continent on the edge of giving birth to what she knew was a child who would have special health needs, and after going into labor, take the incredible risk of flying BACK to Alaska from Texas (which for people with her sort of money has superb health care). Then, when she gets to Alaska, she doesn't rush straight to the nearest big hospital, but takes off on another journey to a smaller one. Sounds as if she was presenting every opportunity that she could for the Lord's will to be done, and dropping some pretty heavy hints as to what it should be.....

First there was that bizarre story about how she flew around while she was almost ready to deliver, that was suspicious. Then the appointment of the former PP official -- as if a fetus fetishist would ever appoint a PP official to anything, especially the Supreme Court. Then later, there was that speech she gave where she admitted "fleetingly" considering abortion. But the real "tell" was when I learned that she'd had amniocentesis during her last pregnancy: there's only one reason to have amnio, and that's if abortion is an option being more than "fleetingly" considered.

Being anti-abortion is a big part of her image & appeal to her base, but in reality too many of the facts say otherwise. (Then again, she could also be one of these "choice for me but not for thee" hypocrites.)